So I always thought that for tech0 components, miniaturization doesn't come into play.

However in a game I'm currently in, having Prop13 is causing the engine QJ5 to cost 2/0/1/2 while having prop14 is resulting in QJ5 costing 1/0/1/1.

According to the archives (RGCS), base components - those with no tech requirements - appear to have a tech level of 0, but in actuality the operate as if they require ALL tech fields to be at level 0. So miniaturization does occur, but only when ALL tech fields increase.

In other words, if you're at Weapons 12 and Bio 0, your laser will cost full price. If you research Bio to level 4 the next year, your laser will start to miniaturize (presuming, of course, all your other research was at level 4 or higher).

So I always thought that for tech0 components, miniaturization doesn't come into play.

However in a game I'm currently in, having Prop13 is causing the engine QJ5 to cost 2/0/1/2 while having prop14 is resulting in QJ5 costing 1/0/1/1.

According to the archives (RGCS), base components - those with no tech requirements - appear to have a tech level of 0, but in actuality the operate as if they require ALL tech fields to be at level 0. So miniaturization does occur, but only when ALL tech fields increase.

In other words, if you're at Weapons 12 and Bio 0, your laser will cost full price. If you research Bio to level 4 the next year, your laser will start to miniaturize (presuming, of course, all your other research was at level 4 or higher).

In your game, did you increase research in other, non-related fields?

Cheers,
Void

Thanks for clearing that up.
As for the specifics, I'll have to check with the other player.
I'll post the exact details later.

[Updated on: Thu, 28 July 2011 13:46]

I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

It is well documented that "zero tech" items are miniaturized according to the lowest tech field.

The fact that you thought they were not miniaturized is probably because few races research Bio past Bio 4 until very late in the game, and by that time they are probably not producing any "zero tech" items other than scout hulls, if they are using scout hulls for chaff.

The reason why the QJ5 engine costs only one resource at prop level 14 is I think easily explained. Each tech level reduces the cost by 5% (see table below) so with a starting cost of 3 at tech level 0 reducing 5% each time shows that between 13 and 14 the cost drops below 1.5 - and I assume Stars! just rounds off the figure - in this case rounding down to 1. What I don't understand is why the mineral costs also reduce and by what rules they follow.

The reason why the QJ5 engine costs only one resource at prop level 14 is I think easily explained. Each tech level reduces the cost by 5% (see table below) so with a starting cost of 3 at tech level 0 reducing 5% each time shows that between 13 and 14 the cost drops below 1.5 - and I assume Stars! just rounds off the figure - in this case rounding down to 1. What I don't understand is why the mineral costs also reduce and by what rules they follow.

Note that the ship designer and production queue dialogs use different rounding than the actual game engine. Say you build 100 ships with a tech 13 QJ5 engine. The cost estimate in production queue is calculated as if the engines cost 100x2 = 200 resources, but the actual cost is 100x1.54 = 154. Cost for the hulls and other slots is added up the same way.

So it displays only the integer but actually uses a more accurate figure? This being the case the difference in cost remains just 5% per tech level and there is no sudden change between levels 13 and 14.

Note that the ship designer and production queue dialogs use different rounding than the actual game engine. Say you build 100 ships with a tech 13 QJ5 engine. The cost estimate in production queue is calculated as if the engines cost 100x2 = 200 resources, but the actual cost is 100x1.54 = 154. Cost for the hulls and other slots is added up the same way.

I always thought of myself as fairly observant, but I never noticed this. Fascinating! I suppose it doesn't come into play much until you're building a lot of cheap ships like this, but this is good to know. Thanks for sharing!

Note that the ship designer and production queue dialogs use different rounding than the actual game engine. Say you build 100 ships with a tech 13 QJ5 engine. The cost estimate in production queue is calculated as if the engines cost 100x2 = 200 resources, but the actual cost is 100x1.54 = 154. Cost for the hulls and other slots is added up the same way.

I don't recall ever reading this before.

The extension is that at tech 14 the queue will estimate 100x1=100 and it will really cost 146? IE I'll try to build 100 and only get 68? That doesn't sound right...

Note that the ship designer and production queue dialogs use different rounding than the actual game engine. Say you build 100 ships with a tech 13 QJ5 engine. The cost estimate in production queue is calculated as if the engines cost 100x2 = 200 resources, but the actual cost is 100x1.54 = 154. Cost for the hulls and other slots is added up the same way.

I don't recall ever reading this before.

The extension is that at tech 14 the queue will estimate 100x1=100 and it will really cost 146? IE I'll try to build 100 and only get 68? That doesn't sound right...

The way I understand it you will still make 100 ships but they will cost more than you expected. However, if you only had 100 resources left then I guess you would make fewer. It would need a test bed to confirm this.

My figures were based on 5% per tech level but as already pointed out it is 4%. The User Guide says it is 5% in the main text (Section 8-2) but in the secton on LRTs it says 4% is the default with a maximum saving of 75%. Bleeding edge gives 5% and 80% respectively.

Messages: 2751
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left

BeeKeeper wrote on Sat, 30 July 2011 11:09

The way I understand it you will still make 100 ships but they will cost more than you expected. However, if you only had 100 resources left then I guess you would make fewer. It would need a test bed to confirm this.

Well, I still remember the two times I got less things built than expected across dozens of games, races, and thousands of planetary queues adjusted to the last Resource. In one of them, it was a single chaff ship, and in the other it was a fully loaded Starbase that only reached 99% completion.

I indeed thought it must have been some kind of rounding error. But nothing nearly as frequent as your numbers would suggest.

Miniaturization of ship hulls and components (star bases not tested), with single or multi-tech requirements:
a) occurs per item, not per fleet, ship or slot;
b) building cost is the original cost deducted of the rounded (to the nearest integer, 0,5 rounded to 1) miniaturization bonus:
c) the costs reported in the Production queue pane are accurate, at the item level (and the total production line cost if completed in the same turn).

I'm emboldened to make these statements (hoping they're not common knowledge), having just concluded a testbed with the following parameters:
a) Stars!2.6jRC4, running in DOSBox0.74 (DOSBoxStars.rar, downloaded here in April 20, 2017);
b) single-race testbed (tiny, packed, close, beginner maximum minerals, accBBS, no random events).

Miniaturization affects both minerals and resources, so noise reduction became paramount.

Mineral effects were easier to assess: production centres with no mines; quantities required deposited on the surface; building queue with no extraneous elements; production batches with one turn length.

One little trick as 512-maximum fleet wasn't an issue: deposit the 100% mineral cost; add cargo capacity to the completed fleet; load any remaining minerals; edit fleet's name to reflect miniaturization level; and at the end of the testbed I have a log of mineral bonuses.

Resource effects were a little trickier: overflow research directed to a "sink" field (Biotechnology was a natural choice). As sinks aren't bottomless, production centres with capability as close as possible to the 100% resource cost, all other planets with Mineral Alchemy active (and spilling to the next turn) during the production run made sure that only miniaturized resources went into research that turn; kept a log of resources budgeted (and/or spent in the previous turn) and research levels (including resources required to reach next level).

Research management was critical. Both in the preparation stage as in the testing stage, resources went into research only if/when needed, Mineral Alchemy was used extensively to ensure levels were advanced (mostly) one at a time with leftover resources (usually) to Biotechnology.

Given that miniaturization works in 4% (or 5%) increments, building 100 each of a component was a natural enough option. Building 100 components that miniaturize the whole range from 100% to 25% cost, at the same location, in one turn, and with little or no extraneous noise, required some extra thought and preparation.

Luckily, the Scout+QJ5 combination provided a 0% miniaturization option if at least one tech field was kept at 0.

The X-Ray/Yak/Blackjack trio would miniaturize up to the full 75% and provide a range of base values to apply the miniaturization to (6b/6r, 8b/7r and 16b/7r, respectively, or 6, 7, 8 and 16). They only require Weapons technology, keeping research management simple.

The Scout+QJ5+weapon combinations initial cost would be 7 Ironium, 8, 10 or 18 Boranium, 5 Germanium, and 19 or 20 resources. Thus I would need at least one planet with 1.900 resources and two planets with 2.000 resources each to run production batches of these ships.

Due to the design slot limit, I was planning to split the testbed and do two separate runs, first with the Scout+QJ5+weapon designs, then with Battleship+QJ5 and different combinations of total number of weapons and number of weapons per slot. This meant that I needed to research Construction to 13 and no further, so the BB hull would not miniaturize. It would also be easier to do in the common trunk of the testbeds.

Never having played with it before, I knew Interstellar Traveller have the best logistics in Stars! The plan being to eventually build Battleships, Hyper Producer economy was the goal, so resources 1/2500, factories 15/7/25/3g, mines 10/3/25. The mines were only to be built at the homeworld.

20+ years after Stars! was released and we're still doing research into its workings...

Well, I was around 20+ years ago

Never an active player, at the time I read a lot of Jason Cawley, William Buttler, Ezequiel Camara et all both in rcgs and in various websites, their style of thorough examination and explanation struck a chord.

Lost touch with the game for several reasons, most critical when upgraded Windows stopped reading my CD.

About a year ago, took the plunge into downloading DOSBoxStar and having a blast relearning to play the game. Solo for the moment, I've been long periods without access to my computer (keeping in touch with the forum with a borrowed tablet) at very short notice, so I won't risk playing.

I have a number of things I want to look into:
a) first and foremost terraforming doesn't work exactly as advertised, right now I can say for sure that it doesn't compare the outcome of the full formula including all three variables; I know this for sure because, trying out JC's Bugs with ranges 30/30/34, I have enough instances where the clear winner doesn't get picked; JC's Foundation Immune/Narrow/Narrow on the other hand worked just right;
b) more work into miniaturization (starbases);
c) items started one turn and finished the next (or later);
d) multi-turn travel;
e) I'm sure I'll think of more